Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30807582›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Tweeting about public health policy: Social media response to the UK Government's announcement of a Parliamentary vote on draft standardised packaging regulations.

Jenny L Hatchard, Joao Quariguasi Frota Neto, Christos Vasilakis, Karen A Evans-Reeves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. An Analysis of Arguments Advanced via Twitter in an Advocacy Campaign to Promote Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 'Tobacco control · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Analysing Credibility of UK Social Media Influencers' Weight-Management Blogs: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jenny L HatchardTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Joao Quariguasi Frota NetoAMBS, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Christos VasilakisCentre for Healthcare Innovation and Improvement (CHI2), School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Karen A Evans-ReevesTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3257-416X

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25745Cancer Research UK C27260/A20488Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandardised tobacco packaging has been, and remains, a contentious policy globally, attracting corporate, public health, political, media and popular attention. In January 2015, the UK Government announced it would vote on draft regulations for the policy before the May 2015 General Election. We explored reactions to the announcement on Twitter, in comparison with an earlier period of little UK Government activity on standardised packaging.

methodsWe obtained a random sample of 1038 tweets in two 4-week periods, before and after the UK Government's announcement. Content analysis was used to examine the following Tweet characteristics: support for the policy, purpose, Twitter-user's geographical location and affiliation, and evidence citation and quality. Chi-squared analyses were used to compare Tweet characteristics between the two periods.

resultsOverall, significantly more sampled Tweets were in favour of the policy (49%) in comparison to those opposed (19%). Yet, at Time 2, following the announcement, a greater proportion of sampled tweets opposed standardised packaging compared to the period sampled at Time 1, prior to the announcement (p<0.001). The quality of evidence and research cited in URLs linked at Time 2 was significantly lower than at Time 1 (p<0.001), with peer-reviewed research more likely to be shared in positive Tweets (p<0.001) and in Tweets linking to URLs originating from the health sector (p<0.001). The decline in the proportion of positive Tweets was mirrored by a reduction in Tweets by health sector Twitter-users at Time 2 (p<0.001).

conclusionsMicroblogging sites can reflect offline policy debates and are used differently by policy proponents and opponents dependent on the policy context. Twitter-users opposed to standardised packaging increased their activity following the Government's announcement, while those in support broadly maintained their rate of Twitter engagement. The findings offer insight into the public health community's options for using Twitter to influence policy and disseminate research. In particular, proliferation of Twitter activity following pro-public health policy announcements could be considered to ensure pro-health messages are not overshadowed by anti-regulation voices.

Indexed as

GovernmentHealth PolicyHumansPublic HealthSocial MediaUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID30807582
PMCPMC6391026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.